All shopping channels
All adult channels
Community Channel (is that still there?)
VIVA and 4Music (should be replaced with channels that actually play music)
All text services
All dating channels
All +1s

Should go. There would be more space for decent channels then.

AKW

15-01-2013 05:28

I would not wish to dictate the removal of a channel just because I don't like it, others my like it so that would be unfair to them.

If I don't like a channel I delete it from the EPG; job done.

TV Time Mike

15-01-2013 07:32

Very true point but I think some people feel cheated with plus 1 channels and home shopping and want them gone so that in theory other 'real' channels replace them. Or at least that is my understanding

PSB text services are the only non-subtitle screen text services availabe to households without internet access: my brother checked the BBC Red Button Travel Pages pages for me before I left his place on 2nd January to come home: it was instant, there when we wanted it and saved making a phone call.

All +1s serve a purpose for those in residential care whose mealtimes coincide with their desiered live viewing.

So all three of these categories have a function for those who do not inhabit the www and Player/ PVR worlds.

Mickey_T

15-01-2013 09:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by TV Time Mike
(Post 63590860)

Very true point but I think some people feel cheated with plus 1 channels and home shopping and want them gone so that in theory other 'real' channels replace them. Or at least that is my understanding

I'd rather them gone so we can have a better picture quality than the crap we've got now on Freeview. It's appalling.

Anyway, my wishes and the OP's wishes wont come true so it's a bit of a pointless thread really.

Dansky+HD

15-01-2013 10:40

I don't care how many shopping and adult channels there are as long as we could have about 20 HD CHANNELS.

Seems a fair trade off.

Mickey_T

15-01-2013 12:07

It would still be utter crap if all those HD channels were taken with shopping channels though.

Very true point but I think some people feel cheated with plus 1 channels and home shopping and want them gone so that in theory other 'real' channels replace them. Or at least that is my understanding

The shopping, adult and dating channels are clogging up a lot of bandwidth. And what about all the channels that are only on for a few hours a day? Couldn't the remaining hours be used for timesharing with another channel? It's one thing having all the shopping channels on satellite as there's more space but they have no place on Freeview where bandwidth is limited.

Sue_Aitch

15-01-2013 13:52

You could try asking the DTT License holders for channels on your personal delete list how profitable their services are. http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/tv-bro...ent-licensees: after all they wouldn't apply to have their licenses renewed if they weren't economically viable.

chrisjr

15-01-2013 14:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnbcwatcher
(Post 63594725)

The shopping, adult and dating channels are clogging up a lot of bandwidth. And what about all the channels that are only on for a few hours a day? Couldn't the remaining hours be used for timesharing with another channel? It's one thing having all the shopping channels on satellite as there's more space but they have no place on Freeview where bandwidth is limited.

They do timeshare. Otherwise they would be paying for a 24 hour slot for no good reason.

jj20x

15-01-2013 17:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mickey_T
(Post 63591665)

I'd rather them gone so we can have a better picture quality than the crap we've got now on Freeview. It's appalling.

Anyway, my wishes and the OP's wishes wont come true so it's a bit of a pointless thread really.

The commercial multiplexes cram in as many channels as they can into the available bandwidth. Obviously they can get more income from selling 13 streams than they could from selling 8 or 9 higher resolution streams. That brings in more cash for the multiplex operator. Assuming that the multiplex operators are setting the price at a level that covers their operating cost, if they were to sell higher resolution streams instead, the cost to the broadcaster would be higher. It's probably safe to assume that the broadcasters don't actually want to pay more.

jj20x

15-01-2013 17:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnbcwatcher
(Post 63594725)

The shopping, adult and dating channels are clogging up a lot of bandwidth.

Adult channels are using the bandwidth nobody else wants. Many broadcasters now have teleshopping overnight, there just aren't any quality broadcasters lining up to take this space. It doesn't make sense to remove these channels, they contribute to multiplex costs. If they are removed the daytime broadcasters would be forced to buy 24 hour slots to cover the operating costs of the multiplex operator, the daytime broadcaster may not be able to afford the additional costs and have to stop using freeview.

Just think of these services as subsidising the services you actually want to see on freeview, that is what they are doing. If you don't want the channels to show up, delete them.

jj20x

15-01-2013 18:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisjr
(Post 63595612)

They do timeshare. Otherwise they would be paying for a 24 hour slot for no good reason.

Indeed. I think it's easy for people to get confused by the way timesharing is organised these days. It was easier to see the timeshares when they actually shared the same video and audio streams as the BBC still do with their timeshares.

Mickey_T

15-01-2013 21:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by jj20x
(Post 63599402)

The commercial multiplexes cram in as many channels as they can into the available bandwidth. Obviously they can get more income from selling 13 streams than they could from selling 8 or 9 higher resolution streams. That brings in more cash for the multiplex operator. Assuming that the multiplex operators are setting the price at a level that covers their operating cost, if they were to sell higher resolution streams instead, the cost to the broadcaster would be higher. It's probably safe to assume that the broadcasters don't actually want to pay more.

Yes, I'm fully aware of the reasons for such sub standard and appalling picture quality on the Com muxes, but I certainly don't have to like it. :)

jj20x

15-01-2013 23:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mickey_T
(Post 63605644)

Yes, I'm fully aware of the reasons for such sub standard and appalling picture quality on the Com muxes, but I certainly don't have to like it. :)

PSB text services are the only non-subtitle screen text services availabe to households without internet access: my brother checked the BBC Red Button Travel Pages pages for me before I left his place on 2nd January to come home: it was instant, there when we wanted it and saved making a phone call.

All +1s serve a purpose for those in residential care whose mealtimes coincide with their desiered live viewing.

So all three of these categories have a function for those who do not inhabit the www and Player/ PVR worlds.

Hear! Hear!

a516

16-01-2013 00:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnbcwatcher
(Post 63610583)

Will it happen in 2014?

1 or 2 new HD muxes may launch covering 63% of the population.
With regards the COM Muxes, they will shoot themselves in the foot if they continue to squeeze more services in. On the otherhand, with 700 MHz clearance looming later in the decade, perhaps they're trying to make as much money as they can now...

TelevisionUser

16-01-2013 00:38

I'd go for the removal of the shopping, gambling and slapper channels plus the Putin propaganda channel (Russia Today).

jj20x

16-01-2013 02:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnbcwatcher
(Post 63610583)

Will it happen in 2014?

Not on the existing multiplexes but, as mentioned by a516, there may be additional multiplexes to promote the use of DVB-T2. This will mean more HD channels and possibly additional SD channels. The problem is that when the majority of the population has been persuaded to convert to DVB-T2, 700 MHz band clearance will mean fewer UHF channels are available, so fewer multiplexes. If the existing channels are all crammed onto fewer multiplexes running DVB-T2, the picture quality will be back to how it is now.

True, but they also don't want the competition, hence why the terrestrials took as many slots as they could, they were trying to limit the competition.

Though I'm guessing they are not too worried about the competition anymore, since it is nothing but shopping and sofa-tart channels.

Fairyprincess0

16-01-2013 09:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by TelevisionUser
(Post 63610783)

I'd go for the removal of the shopping, gambling and slapper channels plus the Putin propaganda channel (Russia Today).

Do the people who bash Russia today actually watch it? It offers news from a different perspective, which is a good thing.

It's also worth checking out for the kiesr report.

jj20x

16-01-2013 16:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by lstar337
(Post 63613090)

True, but they also don't want the competition, hence why the terrestrials took as many slots as they could, they were trying to limit the competition.

Though I'm guessing they are not too worried about the competition anymore, since it is nothing but shopping and sofa-tart channels.

Probably true that the legacy analogue broadcasters would prefer to limit the competition but other broadcasters such as BSkyB, UKTV and Discovery also probably don't want to pay more. If they were willing to pay more for carriage on DTT they could have outbid the shopping channels. The dial-a-slapper channels are slightly different in that they just mop up timeslots not particularly attractive to the mainstream broadcasters.

As for legacy broadcasters not wanting competition, ITV could find a better use for their CITV timeshare than "The Zone" teleshopping. Even if they used it for, say, a part-time version of ITV3 +1.

jj20x

16-01-2013 16:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fairyprincess0
(Post 63613421)

Do the people who bash Russia today actually watch it? It offers news from a different perspective, which is a good thing.

I watched it quite a lot in December, it was like reading an old edition of The Weekly World News. Extraterrestrials working in league with the US Government? Yeah ok, that's a perspective I don't really need.

No; it'll mean the same number of multiplexes, squashed into less channels. This might mean the robustness (and therefore capacity) of the muxes is increased, but that will be likely to be matched with a switch to DVB-T2, so overall there will be more capacity on those muxes, not less.